Why Amit Shah silent on RTI amendment?

There was deafening silence of two Ministers on the Amendment to RTI, while another guest said Gandhi would have sat on Satyagraha against it.

Commissioners - past and present - shared serious apprehensions in the corridors of Vigyan Bhavan during 14th Annual Convention on RTI on 12th October 2019.

Home Minister Amit Shah and DoPT Minister Jitendra Singh thought it was not relevant to even mention about the controversial amendment to the Right to Information Act 2005 disturbing the independence of the Information Commissioners, in their speeches on the occasion of RTI commencement day.

It was balanced and participants felt relieved as Ambassador Pavan K Varma strongly criticised this amendment and said Gandhi would have resorted to Satyagraha in protest.

The Chief Guest, Minister for Home Amit Shah, spoke for 25 minutes but chose to ignore the amendment that was highly debated outside Parliament.

Shah presented profound admiration for the transparency in law and claimed that it had bridged the gap between the people and the government and addressed mistrust.

The Home Minister explained in detail that the Modi government had taken various steps for proactive disclosure on its own which effectively reduced the need to file the RTI applications.

He stated that success of governance could be gauged as the number of RTI applications has come down and not by feeling great at the increase in the number of information requests.

As his narration progressed, he felt the necessity of removal of not only RTI applications, but also the Information Commissions, but suddenly he found the need to remove such apprehension and chose to declare that Information Commissions would remain. The audience heaved a sigh of relief at that great assurance.

Another positive claim by the Home Minister was that the benefits to poor from the RTI in last 14 years were greater than apprehended misuse. He said he personally checked the dashboards for various schemes to know whether full information was available and only thereafter he was venturing to make a claim in the annual RTI meet at national capital.

"The Modi government created necessary infrastructure by way of fully equipped building for CIC, which was languishing in rented building," said the Home Minister.

All those who were anxiously waiting to know the reason for reducing the status and stature of Information Commissioners were disappointed as the Home Minister finished the address without any comment on that.

Former and present Commissioners from States were expecting the Home Minister to explain the need for such amendment or at least to disclose the status of Information Commissioners at States as well as at the Centre.

Most sought after points in the lobby and dining halls of Vigyan Bhavan were, 'What will be the rank of the Commissioners? Will it affect those who are already working? What will be the fate of newly appointed CICs with a condition that their service, status and salary would be as prescribed by the Centre?"

The government-appointed Commissioners at the CIC before the 2019 amendment under a notification that their terms and conditions would be 'as prescribed by the Centre' and not as per the RTI Act, 2005. Though three months passed after the amendment was assented by the President, there were no rules prescribed by the Centre.

The frequently asked questions in the convention were: Why are they not framed? Who will frame? Does it come to Ministry of Law? etc.

Some persons brought rumours that rules were almost ready, and status was decided. Media persons were also found either inquiring or discussing the possibilities.

In the subsequent sessions, a suggestion came from the audience that status and scales of wages of present Commissioners be protected; pension be rightly adjusted without detriment; and if a sitting Commissioner applies for post of Chief Information Commissioner, his status before amendment be protected.

Surprisingly Jitendra Singh, the Minister of State for PMO and DoPT, the nodal agency for implementation of the RTI, was also conspicuously silent on this amendment.

He did not utter even a single word on it. If that amendment is essential and considered a great reform, why should not they claim credit for it. Through such well-thought-silence, the comment was loud and clear that the amendment was not worth to be referred!

One asked, 'How the inaugural speeches were', another answered, 'What was not spoken appears to be very significant than the spoken'.

Pavan Kumar Varma, the Ambassador, while addressing next session on Gandhian thoughts and the RTI emphatically stated that amendment was retrograde and not welcome.

As if he was reading the minds of audience, he criticised the amendment for substantive time of his speech that balanced the prolonged silence on that.

"Fixity of tenure and salary is important for the institution of IC. They cannot be as per the wishes or whims of the rulers. Though I do not doubt the intentions of the government, I cannot agree with this amendment as its impact is going to be retrograde," he added.

Gandhi would have protested Pavan K Varma did not hesitate to say that Gandhi, if alive, would have sat on satyagraha to protest this amendment. "It is well established judicial principle that such an attempt to dilute the institution would weaken the power of citizen that was secured by right to information.

The rights, especially the RTI, break the obesity of government fiefdom. Anything that could have perceived to be weakening the power of citizen, should be resisted. Gandhi would not have like it," he explained.

Varma went on to declare: "If we do not take the side of something we think right, we will be considered as colluders." The RTI lovers appreciated these comments with huge applause.

After attending the RTI convention today, I thought it is my duty to share my observations about the speakers who spoke, but hesitated to mention about the 2019 amendment, which I opposed as violation of fundamental right of expression and federal character of Constitution.

(The writer is former Central Information Commissioner & Dean, School of Law, Bennett University)